Debunking Hunchbacked's "A Strange LEM" Video

[Chew1964]

"the computer computes the moment the LEM must be ejected from the LCM" What??? And then what, Hunch? The LM immediately starts descending towards the Moon because it was "ejected" and is no longer attached to the orbiting CSM, like a sky diver falls towards the Earth because he jumped out of an airplane? You have a completely ridiculous understanding of orbital mechanics.

[loperspest]

I don't understand the maths in the slightest, I have no engineering training or experience, but even I can see the elegance of DOI.

Speaking of elegance, the music is very pleasant and soothing. Reminds me of some parts of Myst.

Is it yours, and if so is it available for download?

[GoneToPlaid]

@loperspest I forgot what music I used for this video. Either it was from freeplaymusic or I picked something from YouTube's free music. If it was from freeplaymusic then it most likely was a piece by Kevin MacLeod as he is one of my favorite artists featured on that web site.

[loperspest]

@GoneToPlaid

Oh yes. One of my favourite Lets Play used "Funkorama" by the same for its end credits.

I like it so much I downloaded it from his website.

[pretongo]

Missing your videos, Gone!

[hunchbacked]

Seriously, on the schema the altitude of the CM is equivalent to the radius of the moon, when it is 16 times smaller in reality, and the CM is orbiting the moon in the wrong direction (i.e. the one which increases the horizontal speed of the LM relatively to the moon, which makes its landing more difficult).

Nuff said!



[GoneToPlaid]

@hunchbacked The moon's equatorial radius is 1080 miles (938.5 nautical miles), with the CSM orbiting approximately 58 nautical miles above the lunar surface. True, the CSM (and LM before descent) is in a retrograde orbit, but the moon's equatorial rotational velocity is a mere 10.3 miles hour towards lunar east. If you knew anything about orbital mechanics, you would realize that the shortest flight time to and from the moon is to approach the moon ahead of its orbit.

[GoneToPlaid]

@hunchbacked So now that I have explained why the CSM and LM orbited the moon in a retrograde orbit, your assertion that the increase in the horizontal speed of the LM relative to the moon's surface due to the moon's rotational period is also ludicrous since the moon's equatorial rotational speed is only 10.3 miles per hour. Perhaps 10.3 miles per hour is a much too dangerous velocity over there in France? Hunchbacked, I will say it again. You are an idiot.

[hunchbacked]

@GoneToPlaid

Even if the rotational speed of the moon is not very important, it still makes a difference of twice the rotational speed of the moon; and it is important for the the LM to minimize its horizontal speed relatively to the moon.

And the explanation why the CSM and the LM orbited in a retrograde orbit does not make sense.

[mercatormac]

@hunchbacked The briefest of googles shows that the Russion Lunas 15,17 and 23 all made retrograde orbits of the moon. Are you saying they are all faked too?

[hunchbacked]

@mercatormac

About the russian lunar missions, I don't know, I don't have enough elements to judge them, so I can assume they are true.

I don't say it is not possible to orbit the moon in a retrograd orbit, and the difference of speed relatively to the moon is effectively not very important.

When the spaceship simply orbits the moon, it poses no problem.

When a spaceship has to land on the moon, it is possible of course.

[hunchbacked]

@mercatormac

But I say that in the case of Apollo, it was a manned mission, the first time that a spacehip containing humans was landing on the moon, and therefore all chances had to be put on the good side to guarantee the success of the mission; and minimizing the horizontal speed of the LM relatively to the moon, even if the difference with the speed in retrograd orbit is not very important, is part of making all chances on the side of success.

[mercatormac]

@hunchbacked Which is the bigger safety win - having the Apollo stack on a free return trajectory or reducing the LM's landing velocity by 20 mph?

[hunchbacked]

@mercatormac

It would have changed nothing to the return.

It would also have made the return a little easier.

[GoneToPlaid]

@hunchbacked A normal versus retrograde orbit would lengthen the time required not only to fly to the moon, but the time required for a free return to earth. And a normal orbit provides no opportunity for an alternative maneuver to orbit the moon and return to earth. Targeting for a retrograde orbit provides for this capability. If the TLI burn was not quite enough for the preferred retrograde orbit with free return, then one can target for a "normal" orbit with a free return.

[hunchbacked]

@GoneToPlaid

Yes, as written in the Apollo documentation by engineers who had the sense of humor!

[GoneToPlaid]

@hunchbacked Obviously you don't have the brains to do the basic math.

[ApolloWasReal]

@hunchbacked Once again, you are an absolutely marvelous demonstration of how, in the wrong hands, a little knowledge can be incredibly dangerous. The significant advantages of the retrograde lunar orbit have been explained to you several times. But you can't or won't understand them, so you dismiss them as unimportant compared to a difference of a few meters/sec in lunar surface velocity. Absolutely amazing.

[hunchbacked]

I have answered to this video.

What is important to note is that the Apollo documentation is not the "holy bible" and full of aberrations as I show in my video response.

So, to take it as a reference makes no sense.

[BlisterHiker]

That self-proclaimed expert probably assumed surface of the Moon was flat all across the distance covered by CSM, which was just hovering above the surface carried by its anti-gravity propulsion.

Assuming that, it sure would've made sense for LM to descent following parabolic path.

Genius mind... no doubt ;-) Hoax community should be proud...

[Tweekerhead]

I was always wondering why we see those pics' of the CM below the LM with the surface of the Moon in the background. Thx' Plaid!

Fantastic video.

[Astrobrant2]

It's amazing how people like hunchbacked just assume their *intuition* is more reliable than all the calculations done by so many real experts in the field.

[Rob260259]

@Astrobrant2

Yep. Hunch represents a lot of these 'on-line home-detectives' searching for some outrageous theory and 'truth'. My kids laugh themselves silly because of his videos. But I'm afraid there are many youngsters here taking these hoaxheads serious...

[Astrobrant2]

@Rob260259 Yep, and there will be a lot more. That's why we have to keep at it.

Hoax nuts remind me of those idiots on TV that go around investigating "haunted houses." I only saw a couple of those shows, but it was enough to demonstrate just how gullible and ignorant people are.

[BlisterHiker]

"I don't have time for debunking your stuff."

@hunchbacked

1. You're too deluded to admit how wrong you are.

2. Yes, you have time. It does not appear you have much else to do in your life than spewing your pathetic videos on YT.

[hunchbacked]

@BlisterHiker

I'll answer to this video when I choose to; I'll do it.

I'm too busy for the moment, this is not my priority, but I'll do it.

[BlisterHiker]

@hunchbacked

As far as my opinion is concerned, don't even bother with replying to GTP's video. I won't be watching another show of your ignorance on this subject.

I know NASA scientists were right, that GTP is right and you're wrong, but don't worry. There are always two people in the world who believe you are correct: stalkervision and you.

You are a failure who found YouTube as your chance to "impress" others. In reality you just embarrass yourself, but your brain just blocks that fact.

[hunchbacked]

@BlisterHiker

What NASA's scientists?

And anyway whether you watch or not my video doesn't make the least difference, since you have never seriously watched any of my videos.

It's not for you that I make my videos, so I don't give it a fuck if you don't watch them.

Go on in your delusion, and I'll go on in my reality.

[Rob260259]

@hunchbacked

"I don't give it a fuck if you don't watch"

Don't you want us to see the twoof Hunch??

[GoneToPlaid]

@Rob260259 I'm surprised that hunchbacked hasn't seen any puddy tats in the Apollo EVA photographs. After all, he sees aliens in some of the Apollo EVA photographs.

[Rob260259]

@GoneToPlaid

Ghehe.. well, I'm trying hard not to feel sorry for our French engineer... I'll wait for his next 'debunking the debunkers' video though.

[Rob260259]

@hunchbacked

Take your time Hunch, don't hurry. And don't worry. Keep us informed about your 'research' and pathetic attempts to debunk this video.

[mercatormac]

@hunchbacked You don't have time to debunk his stuff? You could have used that comment to say why he was wrong.

[GoneToPlaid]

@mercatormac Silly little hunchbacked is so upset that he has blocked me from his wonderfully insane YouTube channel. I shall miss commenting on his channel.

[hunchbacked]

@mercatormac

When I have the time, I'll carefully watch his video, very attentively, and my response will not hold in a simple comment.

So, no this comment was not the place to make a response.

I did not watch his video, because I want to take the time to do it, and for the moment I am too busy to do it seriouslly.

[Rob260259]

@hunchbacked

"The videos of GoneToPlaid are not very difficult to refute, I have done it many times, and I'll also do it for his last video."

Well, what about that...? Can we say.. two days? Three? To come up with a solid rebuttal? As a retired aeronautical computer missile engineer you will not need more time Hunch.

[GoneToPlaid]

@hunchbacked As usual, you can't admit when you have had your ass handed to you on a silver platter.

[Rob260259]

Dammmmn..! GtP You make me go get those books and calculator again!

And reading about the RCS burn to get to a few hundred yards behind the CSM makes me think of that idiot Awe with his 'upside/down' pictures saying that the CSM was in the 'wrong' position in reference to the LM.

I'm going to give him and our French missile expert a little hint about your vid.

Kudos!

[GoneToPlaid]

@Rob260259 What is pathetic is that all of this stuff was easily gleaned from various documents which are available on NASA's technical reports server. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to start searching there, perhaps starting with a keyword such as APOLLO?

[BlisterHiker]

That idiot is one of prime examples of ignorance mixed with illusion of grandeur.

Hard work of brilliant people and decade of experience went into designing and optimizing trajectories both with safety and fuel usage in mind, but that doesn't stop ignorants who don't even bother to get familiar with available documentation from claiming they know better what should have been done.

Another great presentation, GTP. Thanks for doing that.

[GoneToPlaid]

@BlisterHiker You're welcome! Stomping hunchbacked's LEM videos had been on my back burner for some time now.

[ApolloWasReal]

@BlisterHiker Finding those optimum trajectories took a lot of work, especially given the limited computing power available in the 1960s. But showing whether or not any particular trajectory works is far, far simpler, especially with today's personal computers. All HB needs is a PC, Newton's Laws, and the published physical data for the moon and for the LM and he can easily check to see if it all works. Why won't he?

[ApolloWasReal]

@BlisterHiker I keep thinking of Raul Julia's character in The Great Gumball Rally. He rips the rearview mirror out of his car and tosses it away saying "What's behind me is not important" In hunchbacked's case, whatever he doesn't understand is not important. Nor can it work.

One of his current videos claims that the LM's A/D converter couldn't work. Problem is, he only knows one A/D method and the LM didn't use it. The text gave the actual method but he didn't bother reading it.